So what would this leave as options for the ACC. I see the ACC holding up with 10 members and avoiding a championship game that has never been very sucessful for the ACC. This would also increase share per school if the current contact was not reduced by ESPN.

MiamiGeorgia Tech if not taken by the Big TenNorth Carolina StateDukeWakeVirginia TechLouisivllePittSyracuseBoston College

Not sure if Notre Dame would continue to partipate in this 10 member league. I am guessing Notre Dame would have no problem and continue to gain benefits without having to join as a full member.

Basically the ACC would become the old Big East ironically before the first ACC raid. Tit for Tat would be the Big East response.

This 10 member may not be a bad situation for the future by playing round robin football and double round robin basketball.

GOR may finally be possilbe if not other ACC teams are targets for other leagues.

I beleive the Big 12 is content on holding up with 10 and would most likley not want any ACC school that did not include Florida State in the mix.

I think if UVA and UNC bolt to the Big Ten that the SEC would go for VPI and NCSU.

The reason FSU/Clemson were being tossed around was that they were outsiders to the 7 Tabbaco Road teams (4NC/2VA/MD) and it seemed that those bonds were virtually unbreakable. Maryland's gone and its showing some weakness in the ACC but if UVA/UNC jump to the Big Ten then its over. and .

Without UVA, VA Tech is not attached to the rest of the ACC/BE and obviously would ditch them like they did the BE in 2004.

Similarly if UNC goes then their BOR would surely grant NCSU the ability to move as well. NCSU has less in common with the rest of whats left in the ACC/BE and more in common with FSU/Clemson that would all fit into the SEC. (No one wants to be left in the weakest conference while their rival schools jump ship).

And it appears that reported rumor is very similar to ND, NU, MU, MD, Rutgers to the Big Ten back in 2010. Nebraska/ND were to add fb strength/eyeballs while MD/Rut/MU added markets. The Big Ten realized after adding Nebraska that they needed more markets (like most of us thought) and grabbed them.

The difference is that the SEC doesn't need more football strength (nearly half the league was in the top ten) and as much as I hate to admit it A&M was a slam dunk for them in both (Mizzou not so much). The SEC STILL needs markets because all they have is some "pull" in TX/FL/MO/TN plus ATL and NOLA. The other schools are in small market states like MS/AL/KY/SC so adding more major markets and/or new states is a must especially with the SEC network on the horizon.

The only Southern"ish" markets out there w/ a legitimate fb school not in a state with an exsiting SEC school are NC (total pop of 10 mil/DMA over 7mil) VA (total pop of 8 mil+9mil BaltDC/DMA over 4mil+7mil BaltDC) OK (total pop 3 million), KS (total pop 3 million), and WV (2 million). (I'd add Cincy/Pitt to the list but at this time I think the SEC is trying to work with the Big Ten and taking Mizzou already pushed into their territory a bit so I'd doubt they'd grab those two school in two of their premeir states any time soon.)

Besides them you get into estimated market penetration of exsisting SEC states, which is low.

The SEC only has 1 school in...

Texas (total pop of 26 mil) even if you added UT you'd still not get close to 20 mil penetration so estimated impact would be less than 10 million

Florida (total pop of 19 mil) even if you added FSU or Miami (Miami would most likely do better in the South market since FSU and UF are in the North) you'd still not get close to 16 mil penetration so estimated impact would be less than 8 million.

Georgia (total pop of 10 million) so adding GA Tech a best would get you 4 million in market penetration making them an unlikely addition if other options are available.

South Carolina (total pop of 5 million) so adding Clemson at best would get you 2-3 million in market penetration making them an unlikely addition if other options are available.

Kentucky (total pop of 4.5 million) so adding Louiville at best would get you 1 million in market penetration making them an unlikely addition if other options are available.

So adding NC/VPI seem like the most realistic possibilities but I could see them grabbing FSU or another TX school (if the Big 12 didn't have the GOR no way on Houston/SMU/Rice) but Clemson doesn't look very apealing. Its one of those move you do for rivalries and history but that would be different than every move we've seen thus far (with the big conferences).

Still if we use your pedictions, I have a hard time thinking the ACC after losing their Big 5 in Maryland, Virginia, UNC, FSU, and Clemson will just stand pat.

I understand your logic but I have a feeling that they'll feel the need to at least add UConn (the most attractive bball school in their footprint) and possibly a solid fb school like Cinncy or USF (if Miami wants) to get back to 12. If 14 is the real goal then USF and Temple would be the most logical candidates and people would still respect the conference's lineup that now completes the consolidation of the 6 AQ BCS conferences circa 2004 (w/ Temple) 2005 (w/ UL/UC/USF/UConn).

Besides possibly adding Army/Navy/ND, any future additions from any of the nonAQs including the Big East would be met with distain (similar to how we feel about the Big East now) and the ACC would be at risk of joining the non-AQs when the new playoff deal is renegotiated in 2025.

I like it, I like it alot and think it would be a boom for the Big Ten and SEC.

For the Big Ten, they add Virginia and UNC. It gives them 3 "southern" states, all great academic schools, and access to DC, Richmond, Norfolk, Raleigh-Durham and all of VA and NC.

For the SEC, the add NC State and Virginia Tech and they get the same effect...a push north for them to cover even more states. Both schools have a culture that could easily fit in. We're not talking about adding BC or Duke to the SEC, its NC State and VA Tech.

For the ACC, it would be a tough blow.

And one would have to think that the blow would be big enough for Florida St., Miami, Clemson and Georgia Tech to push HARD for the Big 12 at that point. And you know what? Despite the issues Texas has with expansion, adding 4 of the top 5 FB programs from the ACC would be a huge score.

So you'd have an ACC of Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Duke, Wake Forest, Louisville (and Notre Dame for basketball) if those 4 left for the Big 12 (if the Big 12 even wanted them).

So if you have all 10+ND, you just add an 11th and a 12th (Uconn, Cincinnati, Temple, USF, UCF options).

If you lose 4 to the Big 12, you'd have the 6 (7 with ND) and you just slot in 4-6 from Big East (as of now). Schools like UMass and Memphis might be fits at that point as well.

But for now, it seems all is well in the Big Ten so the ACC should be fine.

But the ACC is clearly the next in line to be picked apart, as the Big East and MWC were before. The monster is only getting bigger and the ACC has no place else to hide.

So everyone thinks the ACC will be devoured in the big push to 4 super-conferences.

Not tooo long ago, it was generally agreed that the Big XII was the vulnerable conference.The granting of rights was a terrific ploy to stabilize their situation, and quell each school's fear that everyone else "had one foot out the door".

But I'm not so sure how we get to 4 superconferences from here without the PAC expanding into Big XII territory.

If I were God of college football and wanted to create a neat 4 superconference arrangement, the easiest way is to bust up the Big XII.

Specifically:PAC takes the 4 Texas schools, and in the future maybe 2 other schools west of the Rockies (SDSU, Boise) to go to 16-18 schools.Big Ten takes KU, KSU, ISU, along with Missouri (from SEC) to get to 18.SEC (having lost Missouri) adds OU, OSU, and West Virginia to get to 16.ACC adds Notre Dame FB and UConn for 16.

That's neat, it looks stable, but there is no benevolent power to get us there. For instance, Big Ten doesn't want ISU.

Is it important to get to 4 conferences ? ONLY IF they want to secede from the NCAA D-1 and form their own "NFL" which can exclude every other conference.If they intend to stay in the NCAA D-1 that exists today, they have to accept that any playoff structure must have access for all.So if the current 4 or 5 "power" conferneces want to have AQ's for their confernece champs, they've GOT to expand this playoff from 4 to 8.

AGAIN, if they all see some carrot in getting to 4, inevitably the PAC will have to bite off a chunk of the Big XII.

So the ACC needs to stabilize itself in the near term. How can they do this ? The driver for all schools is REVENUE.The one long suit for the ACC is that they should be a superior basketball conference. Is this a great asset to leverage to allow launching of an ACC Network ? It seems as though the confernece networks lack real content, but a 14-16 team BB conference, in population-rich east coast statesmight have an audience for every single BB game they play (especially if they are truly THE basketball conference).I'm thinking this would be a fine source of additional revenue to pull ACC up into revenue parity with the other conferences, and keep their members happy....

So everyone thinks the ACC will be devoured in the big push to 4 super-conferences.

Not tooo long ago, it was generally agreed that the Big XII was the vulnerable conference.The granting of rights was a terrific ploy to stabilize their situation, and quell each school's fear that everyone else "had one foot out the door".

But I'm not so sure how we get to 4 superconferences from here without the PAC expanding into Big XII territory.

If I were God of college football and wanted to create a neat 4 superconference arrangement, the easiest way is to bust up the Big XII.

Specifically:PAC takes the 4 Texas schools, and in the future maybe 2 other schools west of the Rockies (SDSU, Boise) to go to 16-18 schools.Big Ten takes KU, KSU, ISU, along with Missouri (from SEC) to get to 18.SEC (having lost Missouri) adds OU, OSU, and West Virginia to get to 16.ACC adds Notre Dame FB and UConn for 16.

That's neat, it looks stable, but there is no benevolent power to get us there. For instance, Big Ten doesn't want ISU.

Is it important to get to 4 conferences ? ONLY IF they want to secede from the NCAA D-1 and form their own "NFL" which can exclude every other conference.If they intend to stay in the NCAA D-1 that exists today, they have to accept that any playoff structure must have access for all.So if the current 4 or 5 "power" conferneces want to have AQ's for their confernece champs, they've GOT to expand this playoff from 4 to 8.

AGAIN, if they all see some carrot in getting to 4, inevitably the PAC will have to bite off a chunk of the Big XII.

So the ACC needs to stabilize itself in the near term. How can they do this ? The driver for all schools is REVENUE.The one long suit for the ACC is that they should be a superior basketball conference. Is this a great asset to leverage to allow launching of an ACC Network ? It seems as though the confernece networks lack real content, but a 14-16 team BB conference, in population-rich east coast statesmight have an audience for every single BB game they play (especially if they are truly THE basketball conference).I'm thinking this would be a fine source of additional revenue to pull ACC up into revenue parity with the other conferences, and keep their members happy....

I'll give you 4 super conferences w/o the PAC expanding...B1G takes UVA/UNCSEC takes VPI/NCSUB12 takes FSU/ClemsonACC takes UConn/Cincy/Temple/USFB12 is begged to take Miami/GA Tech and doesNow at a strange 14 set up they decide to rescue Duke/Pitt (both AAU) for 16 to match the SEC/B1G

BOOM 4 Super conferences.

The ACC has...USF, Wake, Lville, Cinncy, Temple, Syracuse, BC, UConn and may add UCF/ECU but then are pretty much irrelevant like the Big East was and the Orange Bowl (which has a provision to do so) could drop them from the ranks of the AQs.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Play everyone in your division and 2 interdivisional games a year (play everyone in other division once in four years just not home and home)

So they southern fb schools get to play each other every year (something they've wanted) Pitt/WVU renew their backyard brawl, Duke if the only one here that may have buyers remorse leaving in state school Wake and the new bball schools Lville/Syracuse and additions of UConn/Cincy/Temple but associating with bball teams like Kansas/Texas may swing that balance, and the academics left in the conference are below par (for Duke) so I think they'd be fine.

If Iowa St doesn't like being in the East and Duke wants more bball schools the could always go to 18 and add Lville/Syracuse to the East and move ISU to the West for two 9 team divisions. The the only losses are BC/Wake.

Play everyone in your division and 2 interdivisional games a year (play all but one team in other division once in four years just not home and home)

Still this basically consolidates the ACC/B12 into a mix mash #4 super conference that will stop all realignment at the elite fb level until the GOR expires in 2025 then we could see another PAC expansion to 16/18/20 to keep up and B1G expansion back in the South (Duke/GT/Miami) West (ND/KU/MU/ISU) or East (Cuse/BC/UConn/Pitt), with the SEC strategically grabbing a few extra markets that fit their profile (Pitt/WVU would be solid additions along with FSU and another Texas school like TCU in DFW or Clemson/Miami if nothing else)

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Everyone wants to keep comparing the ACC and the Big 12 as the odd conference that could be potentially left out of a four team super conference when in fact there is no logic for going to four super conferences.

Sure we have a four team playoff and it would appear to be logical to say you have four champions from four sixteen conference taking up these four sports

First money is driving all these decisions and the four team playoff will not last the entire contract before exapnding to 8, 10, or possibly 12 bids. A playoff will not drive us to four superconferencs.

Less start out with the Pac 12 that everyone is just providing a sure in for one of these proposed four 16 member leages. The Pac 12 network is not fulling in one of its primary markets Phoenix, so the Pac 12 is not position to take on more mouths to feed at the moment.

The Pac 12 has to have schools wanting to join that league. If Texas does not like the Big 12 expanding to 12, there is not reason to beleive Texas wants to join a 16 member league. Texas does not need money.

Texas fought very hard to bring stablity to the Big 12 where the school is the primary flagship in comparison to Michigan and Ohio State of the Big Ten.

I do see the Big Ten and SEC expanding to 16 because it makes scheduling more easy and not necessarily because we are moving to four super confernces.

This is what makes the ACC so vulnerable because of the desire of schools in markets the Big TEn and SEC would want and the fact that ACC schools are willing to move.

Since the Big 12 stablized and signed GOR there is no school going to leave as long as TExas is in that league and i do not see any reason for Texas to want to play on the west coast.

I do see the state of North Carolina nd Virginia as targets for expaning leages and this will keep the ACC unstable for a very long time.

The ACC has basically become the old Big East and is a target for expanding conferences and has schools willing to leave for greener pastures. The Big 12 on the other hand does not have shcools wanting to leave as long as TExas stays put and there is no logical reason for Texas to move ot another league because Texas has want the school wants with a strong regional Big 12.

If the FBS teams (and conferences) all stay within the NCAA, there is not really a "need" to compress down to 4 super-conferences.

4 fits neatly into a (2 to the N power) bracket (see the NFL). That would be the driver. So if 64 were plotting to break off into their own organization, then 4 conferneces each with an equal number of members makes sense.

HOWEVER, with enlarged brackets and a number of at-large berths required by NCAA to provide access to other conferences / independents / etc.,5 is really no worse than 4.

SO how big do the conferneces get ? The driver to expand goes away when the average $ / school ceases to increase.So for the Big Ten to continue to expand, they have to keep hitting markets that are larger than the average of their current markets to keep increasing the worth (divided by the number of schools) of their revenue streams.

I think they've about hit the limit at 14-16. 16 works well for scheduling, and the ACC has gone to 14-1/2Big Ten at 14, SEC at 14...Had the Big XII swooped in back in December and grabbed Louisville and Cincinnati, forcing ACC to replace Maryland with UConn, I would say just about everymedia-value ($25 Million / yr) school would be in the Big 5.right now the two smallest conferneces (PAC = 12, Big XII = 10) could be in a fight for each other's members, but geography and culture just seem to prevent that.

I expect to see an ACC Network at some point. The Big XII's media rights agreement could do something similar, but Texas (and apparently OU) stand to make more going it alone.At some point, that may change, as there does not seem to be enough content from just one school.

If the FBS teams (and conferences) all stay within the NCAA, there is not really a "need" to compress down to 4 super-conferences.

4 fits neatly into a (2 to the N power) bracket (see the NFL). That would be the driver. So if 64 were plotting to break off into their own organization, then 4 conferneces each with an equal number of members makes sense.

HOWEVER, with enlarged brackets and a number of at-large berths required by NCAA to provide access to other conferences / independents / etc.,5 is really no worse than 4.

SO how big do the conferneces get ? The driver to expand goes away when the average $ / school ceases to increase.So for the Big Ten to continue to expand, they have to keep hitting markets that are larger than the average of their current markets to keep increasing the worth (divided by the number of schools) of their revenue streams.

I think they've about hit the limit at 14-16. 16 works well for scheduling, and the ACC has gone to 14-1/2Big Ten at 14, SEC at 14...Had the Big XII swooped in back in December and grabbed Louisville and Cincinnati, forcing ACC to replace Maryland with UConn, I would say just about everymedia-value ($25 Million / yr) school would be in the Big 5.right now the two smallest conferneces (PAC = 12, Big XII = 10) could be in a fight for each other's members, but geography and culture just seem to prevent that.

I expect to see an ACC Network at some point. The Big XII's media rights agreement could do something similar, but Texas (and apparently OU) stand to make more going it alone.At some point, that may change, as there does not seem to be enough content from just one school.

I would think the limit could be as high as 20 but not every conference could do that.How much would the BTN increase by adding these 6, Georgia Tech (Atlanta), BC (Boston), UNC (2 million cable subscribers), Virginia (2 million cable subscribers), Florida State (5.5 million cable subscribers) and Notre Dame.

The only other conference that could make that type of move would be the SEC. Hypothetically taking, Duke, NC State, Virginia Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia. Obviously, UNC and Virginia (possibly FSU) would be in play for the SEC also.

I believe that the ACC needs to add at least one more non-football all-sports member to make it 16 total (14 of those with football). Looks like that it'll be impossible for Notre Dame's football program to join/affiliate in a conference. During their time since 95-96 in the Big East, did the Irish played at least 5-6 games against Big East teams?

SBJ article(previously posted in another thread)discussing report that ACC is looking at possibility of a future league tv network to try and keep pace with "peer" leagues to avoid being raided in the future.Link at http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... s/ACC.aspx

The ACC's suit against UMD doesn't read that strong considering they didn't disclose full procedural protocol, and left out the tidbit of how the withdrawal increase was "amended." Like an albino Dalmatian, it's missing some spots.

UMD's sounds suspicious because if they say this has no merit, why even establish such fines? And UMD's president is the one who supposedly led the charge for the initial fee structure. But, if the ACC is withholding payout money, this thing has got some legs.

There's potential to really open a can of worms, but I suspect this will be settled shortly.

The ACC's suit against UMD doesn't read that strong considering they didn't disclose full procedural protocol, and left out the tidbit of how the withdrawal increase was "amended." Like an albino Dalmatian, it's missing some spots.

UMD's sounds suspicious because if they say this has no merit, why even establish such fines? And UMD's president is the one who supposedly led the charge for the initial fee structure. But, if the ACC is withholding payout money, this thing has got some legs.

There's potential to really open a can of worms, but I suspect this will be settled shortly.

MD's president led the charge? I heard it was MD and FSU that were the only two that voted against the increase. That was one of the reasons I thought MD could get it worked down. But anyone that voted for the increase would sure have a hard time in my opinion if they tried to leave now.

But you're right, this could set a dangerous precedent if MD gets out of paying fees. There would be no reason to have them and could allow constant changing of conferences without penalty. Scary thought.

It was then amended to 3x, or that $52m amount in '12. That is where UMD and FSU said no.

Now, according to that suit, some of the schools wanted 3x from the start, but were talked down to that 1.25x amount by UMD's Loh. Considering it went to the supposed originally envisioned 3x with all but UMD and FSU consenting, does that sound like UVA, UNC, and GT are just waiting for the right moment to seek greener pastures, anyone?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum